Date: Thu, 17 Nov 1994 11:03:51 -0500
[ Send all responses to quadrat@INTERLOG.COM only. Any responses to
the list or list-owners will be returned to you. ]
The Liberal party, which holds a majority in Parliament and forms Canada's
federal government, is proposing changes to the Criminal Code of Canada.
Part of the changes that would be made to the Criminal Code by Bill C-41
are intended to include gay-bashing as a form of hate-motivated crime. As
well, Canadian courts have ruled that discrimination on the basis sexual
orientation should be "read into" the Canadian Human Rights Act as
prohibited, and Allan Rock, the Minister of Justice, has stated his
intention to amend the Human Rights Act to specifically prohibit
discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. The government is now
grappling with dissent from some its own Members of Parliament over these
proposed changes.
This past summer a weak attempt by the New Democratic government in the
province of Ontario to introduce amendments to provincial legislation to
equalize the treatment of gays and straights met with severe opposition
both outside and inside government ranks and resulted in the ultimate
defeat of the legislation. Since then the right in Canada has become even
more vociferous in protecting its privilege to discriminate.
This story is from _The Globe and Mail_, Thursday, November 17, 1994.
David Vereschagin
quadrat@interlog.com
75645.1752@compuserve.com
* * * * *
Rock yanked into debate on gay rights
Sentencing bill refers to sexual orientation
by Tu Thanh Ha
Parliamentary Bureau
OTTAWA -- For Justice Minister Allan Rock, two words in a 75-page bill on
criminal sentencing rules unveiled last spring have turned into the
equivalent of Alice's looking glass.
Those two words -- sexual orientation -- have yanked Mr. Rock through
a mirror into a controversy he was not planning to be dragged into. It has
developed into an intense debate about gay rights that has invoked
emotional arguments about hatred, pedophilia and the roles of lawmakers and
of the courts.
Mr. Rock is to appear this morning before the Commons justice
committee to defend Bill C-41, which overhauls sentencing clauses in the
Criminal Code.
The section of the bill that has triggered this controversy says
harsher penalties can be imposed when a crime is motivated by prejudice or
hated based on -- among other things -- sexual orientation.
One of the most vocal critics of the bill, Liberal MP Tom Wappel, is a
member of the committee. Other opponents of the project are also expected
to be on hand.
"The issue is finally coming forth," Liberal MP Daniel McTeague said.
Like other backbenchers who disagree with the government's bill, Mr.
McTeague thinks it is a Trojan horse that will entrench the concept of gay
rights within federal statutes.
The challenge for Mr. Rock will be to convince his critics that the
scope of the bill is limited and that its impact will not spill into other
areas, such as extending same-sex federal benefits.
"The bill is talking clearly about sentencing. It doesn't deal in any
way with lifestyles. Not in any way," said Gordon Parry, a Justice
official who co-ordinates the policy unit in charge of sentencing.
Eight of the 10 provinces already recognize gay rights in their
statutes, and several courts have had to deal with the issue. "It's
already in law and has been the subject of jurisprudence," Mr. Parry said.
In the so-called Haig case, the Ontario Court of Appeal ruled in 1992
that sexual orientation, while not explicitly listed in the Canadian Human
Rights Act, can be "read in" as prohibited grounds for discrimination. The
ruling was not appealed by Ottawa, and hundreds of complaints dealing with
sexual orientation have since been handled by the Canadian Human Rights
Commission.
To recognize this situation, Mr. Rock has said he plans to amend the
Human Rights Act to prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation --
a change that would affect all federal jurisdictions.
But while the government is arguing that it is merely putting into law
what already has been recognized by the courts, Mr. Wappel, a staunch
opponent of recognizing sexual orientation as a prohibited basis of
discrimination, said it is lawmakers, not judges, who should set the
agenda.
"It's totally inappropriate for a court to read in words that are not
there. That's legal fiction," he said.
Mr. Wappel's opposition to gay rights is multilevelled. He does not
believe that homosexuality is moral.
He said it is hard to justify prohibiting discrimination based on
homosexuality, because he believes that it is neither visible nor
inherited, like skin colour or gender, but is a chosen way of life.
Reminded that people may be discriminated against because of their
religious beliefs, he said: "Religion is virtually genetic, since it is
passed from generation to generation. Homosexuality is not genetic, but a
choice."
If sexual orientation is recognized, Mr. Wappel said, it could open
the door to courts to legislate gay rights into other matters -- for
example, changing immigration sponsorship rules to allow for same-sex
couples, or even, allowing pedophiles to legitimize their actions.
For John Fisher, executive director of the gay rights group EGALE,
such fears are unfounded, and feed into stereotypes of gays as being sexual
predators. "There isn't a single decision of a court that might suggest
it. Pedophilia is not related to sexual orientation." Mr. Fisher said.
* * * * *